Comments

I have Bowens Studio strobes. They are great. When I bought them I was persuaded to spend a bit more to get 'the best'. To invest in lesser was to throw money away, long term. I still believe that was good advice and have no regrets.

The strobes came as part of a Calumet 'Portable Studio in a Box'. My first shoot with them brought in around double what I paid for the whole 'Box'. Given the high margins, once print orders were fulfilled I still made a profit, so everything since has been 'found money'. Apart from business costs and expenses, of course.

I think that digital has changed the marketplace. The long standing business model of a pro with a High St studio has largely gone, replaced by home freelancers with websites, high ISO DSLRs, RAW processing and Photoshop.

Many freelancers are have-a-goes and clueless about sustainable business, so have reduced margins for established pros making it harder for all to survive. That has a knock on effect for the whole industry....

noyo: Does anyone else see the contradiction of this video and the way the photographer is presented?

He says that equipment is not so important. An iPhone could make better photos than $3K+ of gear. Yet he makes the effort to carry around and set up that lumbering, 5x4 plate camera + tripod! We also see him shooting a Canon DSLR with a $3K+ lens on it.

What we don't see is him demonstrating or 'practising what he preaches'. Where is the footage of him with his iPhone or the shots taken with it or a cheap PAS?

Actually, I agree that great photographs are not about the gear but about the photographer and their interaction with the subject, animate or inanimate, although good gear and good technique are useful in capable hands.

The video does give insights into what makes great photos, which I completely agree with. But a lot of people will simply hear that it's not about expensive gear, while what they keep seeing is the opposite.

IMHO. That's disingenuous.

@snapper2013 I don't disagree with your comments about that specific point, but what I am saying is that what he says with his lips throughout the video, the messages we can hear, are different to the messages we see with our eyes. There are at least 2 different stories being told here, albeit the visual ones are more subliminal.

Verbally he downplays the role of equipment throughout but visually demonstrates that he invests a lot of time, effort and money in it.

I guess he may be trying to dispel the widespread misconception that good photos come from having a good camera, without stating it in so many words. But while trying to downplay this audibly, in practice he demonstrates something else.

He does say a lot of good things about what makes good photos. Let's hope people pick up on that and it makes us better photographers.

Does anyone else see the contradiction of this video and the way the photographer is presented?

He says that equipment is not so important. An iPhone could make better photos than $3K+ of gear. Yet he makes the effort to carry around and set up that lumbering, 5x4 plate camera + tripod! We also see him shooting a Canon DSLR with a $3K+ lens on it.

What we don't see is him demonstrating or 'practising what he preaches'. Where is the footage of him with his iPhone or the shots taken with it or a cheap PAS?

Actually, I agree that great photographs are not about the gear but about the photographer and their interaction with the subject, animate or inanimate, although good gear and good technique are useful in capable hands.

The video does give insights into what makes great photos, which I completely agree with. But a lot of people will simply hear that it's not about expensive gear, while what they keep seeing is the opposite.

If you haven't already done so, perhaps you should google 'world's most expensive photographs' and take a look at what is valued as collectible or investable in photography.

What passes as art and the value placed on it, for me, is somewhat jaw-dropping - flat, uninspired, poorly photoshopped, vacuous and not necessarily original.

The clue here is that art is not about the best/most expensive gear, the best technique, best composition, prettiest subject or scene.

Simply owning a camera or taking photos doesn't make an artist, just as owning a football wouldn't qualify us to be a professional footballer or referee. It helps if we have a range of good skills and knowledge about the game.

Perhaps on order to make, understand or judge art we need to know about it, the industry and what passes as art, although we can all certainly shout from the touchline or from the comfort of our chairs.

noyo: Initially I reacted much like some others here, with incredulity. However, as with much 'art', the more I looked, the more I began to understand what it was about.

Without reading the accompanying description I figured out the narrative, the subtext behind the obvious and also (dare I say) the genius behind the photographic composition.

This image to me is about the cold-headed, disengagement of a group of girls, peers, who have nothing to say, no personal interaction while their smart devices, food dishes and coffee cups lie on the table unused. They are rendered incapable, devoid of emotional or intellectual engagement. The meal is over.

The empty food dishes, the vacant stares and the blank wall combine to convey an emptiness. Without coffee, without food, without technology, the things we use to connect with each other, to socialise, there is a hollow emptiness.

(to be continued...)

Having referenced 'The Last Supper', after I posted I googled and had another look. I was even more bemused to see just how many parts of this image directly copy the ideas of da Vinci's masterpiece. To criticise this (compositionally) is perhaps to suggest that a great classical work of art is lacking, albeit Stewart's work doesn't compare in so many ways.

Perhaps Stewart should be disqualified for blatant plagiarism?

Certainly, I'm no apologist for Stewart and I cannot argue with vadims that this implementation is indeed staged and wooden, but somehow for me that adds to the mood of emptiness. Staged wooden puppets with no personality, having nothing to say, no heart, no emotion.

I've never been to art College/Uni, although I do study great images on the web and try to understand why they work and why others do not. Perhaps 'genius' was too generous but we can easily dismiss things that don't immediately appeal or instantly understand.

noyo: Initially I reacted much like some others here, with incredulity. However, as with much 'art', the more I looked, the more I began to understand what it was about.

Without reading the accompanying description I figured out the narrative, the subtext behind the obvious and also (dare I say) the genius behind the photographic composition.

This image to me is about the cold-headed, disengagement of a group of girls, peers, who have nothing to say, no personal interaction while their smart devices, food dishes and coffee cups lie on the table unused. They are rendered incapable, devoid of emotional or intellectual engagement. The meal is over.

The empty food dishes, the vacant stares and the blank wall combine to convey an emptiness. Without coffee, without food, without technology, the things we use to connect with each other, to socialise, there is a hollow emptiness.

(to be continued...)

Certainly, the metaphors here are so 'in your face' they are almost cliché, but so many people here are still not getting them. How obvious does it need to be?

There is also the visual nod to Leonardo da Vinci's, 'The Last Supper'. Once you read the accompanying details the significance of that becomes obvious, although without this knowledge, less so.

The disengagement is self absorption with the prospect of what lies ahead, which gives a different angle on this, and I guess reverse-engineers the photographer's thinking. However the pathos is palpable.

Compositionally, this looks to have broken all the rules. But the more you see the empty wall, with its cold, fluorescent, light tones as the prime subject, then you will see the rule of thirds is observed, absolutely.

Suddenly it all makes pictures of pretty scenery or random street images seem a bit 'point and shoot'.

Initially I reacted much like some others here, with incredulity. However, as with much 'art', the more I looked, the more I began to understand what it was about.

Without reading the accompanying description I figured out the narrative, the subtext behind the obvious and also (dare I say) the genius behind the photographic composition.

This image to me is about the cold-headed, disengagement of a group of girls, peers, who have nothing to say, no personal interaction while their smart devices, food dishes and coffee cups lie on the table unused. They are rendered incapable, devoid of emotional or intellectual engagement. The meal is over.

The empty food dishes, the vacant stares and the blank wall combine to convey an emptiness. Without coffee, without food, without technology, the things we use to connect with each other, to socialise, there is a hollow emptiness.

noyo: I can see that some business users that always upgrade to the latest releases may not notice any difference to the cost or perhaps may even be better off, if they use all the apps.

The problem is that you are locked in to whatever they serve up to you, good or bad, because if you stop paying you lose access and have nothing to show for years of investment. You can't skip a version. If you have a bad cash flow month and the banks aren't lending, you are in trouble.

The pricing is too crude too as choosing 1 app or all is not realistic to someone like me, a serious amateur/semi-pro still using CS2 & Lightroom 4.

Also, Cloud Computing is premature in many places in the UK as broadband speed is terrible (downstream <3Mb/s, upstream <1Mb/s). Uploading ONE 25MB raw file would take how many hours?

It means 'goodbye Adobe'. I guess individually I may be no great loss to them but there must be many more like me and that will add up.

@ Josh Maybe it wasn't an official comment but I did read somewhere that you could use the app for 12 months following cessation of payments. But maybe it was some of the misinformation that's going around.

Bottom line for me is that it is too costly, has too many if & buts and has too many strings attached in favour of Adobe and against users.

noyo: I can see that some business users that always upgrade to the latest releases may not notice any difference to the cost or perhaps may even be better off, if they use all the apps.

The problem is that you are locked in to whatever they serve up to you, good or bad, because if you stop paying you lose access and have nothing to show for years of investment. You can't skip a version. If you have a bad cash flow month and the banks aren't lending, you are in trouble.

The pricing is too crude too as choosing 1 app or all is not realistic to someone like me, a serious amateur/semi-pro still using CS2 & Lightroom 4.

Also, Cloud Computing is premature in many places in the UK as broadband speed is terrible (downstream <3Mb/s, upstream <1Mb/s). Uploading ONE 25MB raw file would take how many hours?

It means 'goodbye Adobe'. I guess individually I may be no great loss to them but there must be many more like me and that will add up.

I haven't read everything there is to read on this but I did watch the official video & have considered the implications).

I also read the DPR articles including statements like 'New Product Innovation to be Delivered Exclusively Through Adobe Creative Cloud'. That seems clear & for me anything cloud based is not good.

Perhaps some expert out there can tell me what happens if I need to take a break from the monthly payments? Can I stop for a while and start up again when it suits me without any interruption to app usage? I think there is a 12 months limit on app usage after stopping.

What is there to stop me taking the subscription, getting all the apps and then stopping payments after only a month? I get the whole thing for one monthly payment? Can I pay again after 12 months and get all the upgrades, then stop after 1 payment again? I don't think so.

We need to be careful of taking what we read at face value and not thinking through the unwritten implications.

I can see that some business users that always upgrade to the latest releases may not notice any difference to the cost or perhaps may even be better off, if they use all the apps.

The problem is that you are locked in to whatever they serve up to you, good or bad, because if you stop paying you lose access and have nothing to show for years of investment. You can't skip a version. If you have a bad cash flow month and the banks aren't lending, you are in trouble.

The pricing is too crude too as choosing 1 app or all is not realistic to someone like me, a serious amateur/semi-pro still using CS2 & Lightroom 4.

Also, Cloud Computing is premature in many places in the UK as broadband speed is terrible (downstream <3Mb/s, upstream <1Mb/s). Uploading ONE 25MB raw file would take how many hours?

It means 'goodbye Adobe'. I guess individually I may be no great loss to them but there must be many more like me and that will add up.

I was initially as cynical as others here. If you want the best quality photos just get a proper camera and forget the contraptions. That's speaking as a photographer.

Speaking as a smartphone user, not everyone would want or see the need for a proper camera since the quality available from high end phones is stunning (for what they are). Sure there could be softness, chroma and distortion that a serious photographer might not tolerate but I can see a market for people who already have a smartphone and a scope. They may get shots with this they wouldn't otherwise get as they wouldn't go out and buy a whole camera system.

The device functionality and appeal could be improved by including a thread that would allow for tripod mounting without a scope.

Plus some attachments that would allow it to be mounted (without the scopes) on a car, bike, etc., making it simply a mounting device. 'We don't need another Hero'.

With the demise of Jacobs and Jessops there are no longer any significant specialist photographic high street retailers in any main Scottish town or city, which I find very sad.

The internet is great but I like to go into a store to handle and try things before I buy in a non pressured environment, everything from cameras to clothes & shoes, etc.

Of course there is Ffords of Beauly but they are far away in the Highlands and there are also some Calumets but I feel more pressured to buy in them. The concept of 'just looking' is viewed with suspicion and I get the feeling they can't be bothered if they think you are not going to buy straight away. I have bought some gear from them but they are also harder to get to.

And there are the sheds like PCWorld, Argos etc but the variety of stock and accessories they carry is limited.

Some enterprising entrepreneur should wake up to the fact that Scotland is a camera gear desert right now and jump into the void.